Planning for growth: planning reform and the Cambridge
Phenomenon.
Hannah Hickman1 and Martin Boddy2
August 2014
The ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’, the remarkable growth of research, development,
high technology industry and employment clustered around the city’s world-class
university, has achieved global recognition (Segal Quince and Partners, 1985; Keeble,
1989; Crang and Martin, 1991; Segal Quince Wicksteed and Partners, 2011a,
2011b)). Visiting the University’s Molecular Biology Lab in April 2014, the UK
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne praised both the scientific
achievements of the University but also its economic impact which he hailed as ‘an
extraordinary story’ and a model for the country as a whole: ‘What you’ve achieved
here has been called “The Cambridge Phenomenon”. I want it to be the British
phenomenon’ (HM Treasury, 2014). He was, he said ‘here to tell you: we will
continue to back Cambridge’. Meanwhile, however, his ministerial colleagues in
charge of the national planning system were playing to what was potentially a very
different script. Radical reform of the planning system in England, culminating in the
Localism Act 2011, had swept away both strategic planning in the form of Regional
Spatial Strategies (RSS) and top-down targets for new house building at a local
authority level (Baker and Wong, 2012; Gallent et al, 2013; Boddy and Hickman,
2013; Monk et al 2013). The Localism Act, together with the new National Planning
Policy Framework introduced a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
At the heart of the new localism, however was the principle of ‘passing new powers
and freedoms to town halls’ and that ‘power should be exercised at the lowest
practical level – close to the people who are affected by decisions’ (CLG, 2012a, 6).
In practice, the introduction of the new planning framework led many local councils,
especially across prosperous southern England, to announce significant reductions in
levels of new house building set out previously in Regional Spatial Strategies and
projected levels of new house building were rolled back (Tetlow King Planning, 2012;
Boddy and Hickman, 2013).
The Cambridge city-region had seen particularly strong growth in hightechnology, university-linked businesses and employment, starting in the 1970s. For
much of the post-war period the planning context, here, as across much of southern
England, had in fact been one of constraint with only limited concessions to these
pressures for growth. It epitomised what Brindley et al (1996) termed ‘regulative
1
2
Hannah Hickman Associates and Visiting Research Fellow, University of the West of England, Bristol.
Professor or Urban and Regional Studies, University of the West of England, Bristol.
planning’ (see also Crang and Martin, 1991; While et al, 2004; Healey, 2007).
University expansion and the growth of the high technology cluster were increasingly
frustrated by continued planning constraints. Shifts in the planning framework in
2000 to 2003 (detailed later) had however reframed the strategic context in support
of growth. This included significantly higher levels of housing development and
employment. These growth plans were confirmed by the RSS for the East of England
which emphasised the importance of the delivery of already agreed upon plans for
physical expansion across the sub-region. The demise of strategic planning and RSS
and the rise of localism thus posed potentially very significant questions for the
future trajectory of the city-region – and for the future of the Cambridge
Phenomenon itself.
This paper examines how planning reform, including abolition of regional
strategy and top-down targets, and the advent of localism, has played out in the
Cambridge city-region. It looks at how a wide range of stakeholders have viewed and
responded to reform and at why stakeholders have responded in the way that they
have. It goes on to look at potential implications of planning reform for continuing
growth and the future trajectory of the city region and the wider Cambridge
Phenomenon – does localism pose a potential threat to the neo-liberal growth
strategy which some have seen as epitomised in the recent history of the Cambridge
phenomenon? In doing so it will explore both shifts in neo-liberal strategy
(recognising as Allmendinger (2009) points out that neo-liberalism itself includes
different emphases and traditions) and also the tensions between neo-liberal growth
strategies and what might be termed neo-conservative localism as played out in the
field of planning. It will also explore the basis for what are apparently very different
outcomes of an avowedly National policy framework as this has been played out in
different local contexts, in what Allmendinger and Haughton (2013), and Haughton
et al (2013) have intimated may be a period of experiment and innovation and which
Raco (2012) and Deas (2012) have suggested may represent an era of ‘post-politics’,
counter neo-liberalising tendencies (Brenner et al 2010) and even the end of the
neo-liberal project.
Planning for growth and the Cambridge Phenomenon
The response to localism and planning reform in the Cambridge city-region needs to
be understood in the context of post-war planning history in the area and the
particular trajectory of knowledge-based, high technology growth captured in the
mid-1980s in the idea of the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ (Segal, Quince and Partners,
1985). For much of the post-war period growth was highly constrained (While et al
2004; Healey 2007; Morrisson 2010; Allmendinger 2011). The 1950 Holford Report
established the principle of the Cambridge green belt and the planning concept that
growth should be dispersed beyond the green belt to surrounding towns and villages
to protect the historic core of Cambridge.3 Major growth of Cambridge itself was to
3
Proposals developed earlier by the influential Cambridge Preservation Society, forerunner of Cambridge Past,
Present and Future (Cooper, A., 1998).
be restricted on the basis that “one cannot make a good expanding plan for
Cambridge” (Holford and Wright, 1950, viii).
High technology businesses including spin-outs and other university-linked
developments started to grow through the 1970s including the development of the
Science Park by Trinity College from 1973. The University had pushed for researchrelated development to be allowed as early as 1969 (Mott, 1969) and there was
some relaxation to this end (Cambridge County Council 1971) but there was no
revision of the green belt at this time and restrictions on housing, industrial uses or
corporate headquarters remained tight. The ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ began to take
off in the 1980s. Segal, Quince and Partners stressed the importance in this of high
technology including individual entrepreneurs linked to the university, research and
development rather than large-scale production or assembly. At this time, the
university, in its desire to foster high technology growth to meet the developing
needs of the university and university-business links, began to push for planning
reform (Segal Quince and Partners, 1985; Keeble, 1989; Crang and Martin, 1991).
Development remained, however tightly constrained. House prices rose sharply
through the 1980s and there was mounting concern that the existing planning
framework in representing a constraint on development potentially negatively
impacted the trajectory of the Cambridge Phenomenon itself. Revisions to the
County Structure Plan in 1989 provided for two new settlements and some
adjustment to the green belt to the north of the city adjacent to the Science Park but
housing restraint at Cambridge itself remained tight.
In 1997 the Cambridge Futures Group was formed, promoted initially by the
University and was a non-profit making group of local business leaders, politicians,
local government officers, professionals and academics looking at the options for
growth in and around Cambridge. Its purpose was: “to investigate possible planning
alternatives for Cambridge and its surrounding area …. and engage stakeholders
outside the statutory planning processes as a way of achieving politically acceptable
plans” (Echenique 2005, 113). It evaluated a relatively balanced series of options and
the consequences that were likely to flow from these - including future restraint as
well as growth focussed options. It is widely reported that this work enabled broad
consensus to be reached about Cambridge being at a ‘tipping point’: the advantages
of ‘growth’ would outweigh the negatives, and that despite tough political decisions,
‘ditching the existing policy of restricting growth suddenly seemed the obvious thing
to do’4.
The agenda for growth which followed has been set out in detail elsewhere
(Morrisson, 2010; Platt 2013). In brief, the sub-regional strategy for Cambridge set
out in 2000 by the government in Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia (RPG6,
Government Office for the East of England, 2000) provided the strategic context for
major development in the Cambridge sub-region including green belt review. This
represented a fundamental shift in the planning strategy for the sub-region that had
remained relatively unchanged for almost 50 years, despite substantial challenge and
4
Brian Smith, Director of Planning and Transport, Cambridgeshire County Council, quoted in Platt, 2013, 10.
‘fierce’ debate, particularly about whether “attempts to inhibit the spontaneous
growth of new enterprise and high-tech enterprise, by means of planning controls,
[are] in anyway justified from the national economic perspective” (Keeble, 1989,
167). This was then reflected in the 2003 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Structure Plan a key document which supported major release of land in the
greenbelt and substantial housing growth (see table 1). Seen by many as building
directly on the work of the Cambridge Futures Group, the Plan detailed the
requirement for development both within the built-up area of Cambridge and on its
edge including within South Cambridgeshire, subject to green belt review– a total of
32,500 dwellings over the plan period. This confirmed a major change to the policy of
preceding decades. It seems, however, to have coalesced around a process driven at
a local and sub-regional level, rather than reflecting external, national pressures. In
support of this strategy, a local delivery vehicle, Cambridgeshire Horizons was
established across the sub-region in 2004, in recognition of the need to project
manage and work across sectors and authorities to deliver this level of planned
growth. The development strategy for Cambridge set out in the 2003 Structure Plan
was then carried through, largely unchanged, into the Regional Spatial Strategy for
the East of England (Government Office for the East of England, 2008). A subsequent
review did try to push up housing numbers further in the sub-region but had not
been adopted before it was overtaken by the 2010 general election and abolition of
RSS.5
The University itself maintained a strong interest in the physical development
of new sites as it expanded the scale and scope of research, teaching, academic staff
and student numbers, moved out of congested city-centre sites and worked
increasingly closely with external partners located in the sub-region. Development of
the West Cambridge site continued alongside plans published in 1999 for a major,
university-led urban extension at North West Cambridge finally approved in February
2013 - the largest single capital development project the University has undertaken
in its 800 year history. The impact of the scale and influence, formal and informal, of
the university and university interests including extensive landholdings and access to
financial resources thus played a considerable role in support of growth and physical
expansion over an extended period of time (see Glasson et al 2013).
After decades of constraint, the last twenty years have thus seen the subregion embracing growth. This has been reflected in a period of rapid expansion of
technology-related business, university-related activities and, to an extent, levels of
new house-building. Its population grew by 14,000 to 123,900 over the period 2001–
2011 (fourth fastest city in the UK6, Centre for Cities, 2014) and is forecast to grow by
a further 28% by 2031 (Cambridgeshire County Council, 2011). It had the lowest
unemployment rate of UK cities at 1.4% in 2013 (November) and private sector jobs
grew by 3.6%m fourth fastest7 (ibid). It was also one of very few cities where
5
RSS for the East of England also referred explicitly to the need to implement the strategy for growth set out
previously in Regional Planning Guidance (RPG 6, Government Office for the East of England 2000)
6
Behind Peterborough, Milton Keynes and Swindon, all three of which are designated new or expanded towns
7
Behind Aldershot, Peterborough and Telford.
economic growth continued through the recession (Centre for Cities, 2013). Its
economy was recently described as “substantial, productive and competitive” (SQW
2011a, ii). Reflecting its employment structure (including the university impact) 66%
of the workforce had higher level qualifications (NVQ 4 and above) the highest for
any city nationally and it accounted for 66 patents per 100,000 population,
compared with 19 in the next highest, Swindon and 12 in Edinburgh (Centre for Cities
2014), evidence of why Cambridge is ranked as one of the top three ‘innovation
ecosystems’ in the world (Naughton 2013).
Housing supply has, however, failed to keep pace with population growth and
both house prices and rents relative to incomes are amongst the highest outside of
London (Centre for Cities, 2013; Havergal, 2012). The house-price affordability ratio
of 11.7 is second only to London and Oxford. House-prices grew by over 10% in
2012/13, almost three times the national average (Centre for Cities, 2014). the
Home Builders Federation (2013) reported a 60% slump in house-building in
Cambridge in 2012-13 compared with 2006-7, lower than in any year since 2002 and
with only 14% of these across the County as a whole classed as ‘affordable’. The
University cited the shortage of high quality, affordable housing as a major constraint
on its further growth given the increasingly global competition to attract the top
academics and researchers (Cambridge University Special News Supplement,
Michaelmas 2012). Consultants SQW, with a long history of involvement in the subregion, identified in a review of ‘The Cambridge Cluster at 50’, that housing and
infrastructure constraints could have strong negative impacts on future
competitiveness (SQW, 2011a). So whilst the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ brought
economic success, the challenges, particularly of housing affordability and
congestion identified by Holford and Wright in the 1950’s, still being ‘wrestled’ with
by today’s planners (Baker 2010), provide a striking context within which to examine
the potential impacts of planning reform.
Comparatively small in absolute population terms compared to other cities
within the UK, the economic performance of Cambridge, particularly its capacity for
innovation and business start-ups, has meant that it is perceived as a driver of
economic growth well beyond its immediate hinterland: ‘an important locale in the
wider economic nexus of Southern England’ (Healey 2007, 163). The international
status of the university together with its links to many high-profile, high technology
businesses and research establishments has contributed to the status of the
Cambridge phenomenon itself ‘as being of national and international significance’
(Moules and Pickford, 2013; Segal Quince Wicksteed, 2011b). Successive
governments have supported its development and celebrated the economic success
of the Cambridge region. Crang and Martin described the Cambridge sub-region as
classic ‘Thatcher country’, ‘the epitome of the sort of local economic development
on which Britain’s renewal depends’ (1991, 92). More recently, visiting the
University’s world-leading Molecular Biology Lab in 2014, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer praised both the scientific and economic achievements of the University
and the wider ‘Cambridge cluster’: “what you have achieved here has been called the
Cambridge phenomenon. I want it to be the British phenomenon” (HM Treasury,
2014). Similarly in the furore over planning reforms and the announcement of the
presumption in favour of development in 2012, the Chancellor had cited how smart
Cambridge had been in undertaking green belt swaps (see Wallop, 2012).
Nationally, this aspiration for economic growth has been a consistent strand
of the narrative on the role of planning over the last three decades, which has
located planning within a broadly neo-liberal paradigm (Allmendinger and Haughton,
2012b; Davoudi et al 2013; Clifford et al, 2013). More detailed debate has focused on
the role of the state in regulating support for growth and how this has been
manifested in the planning system. At issue has been ‘the territorial structure of the
state and how that structure can absorb or deflect demands to facilitate growth in
the spaces of the new economy’ (While et al 2004, 301). The regulatory reforms of
the previous Labour administration set out initially in the 2004 Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act and then superseded by the 2008 Planning Act, sought to
respond to the perceived ‘growth crisis’ of the 1990’s - severe under-provision of
housing was increasingly seen as a potential brake on economic growth and national
prosperity (see Barker 2004). Planning was ‘mobilised’ as Inch (2012b) describes, to
support aspirations for growth, with the planning system becoming increasingly
focussed on facilitating and legitimising economic competitiveness (see also Inch,
2009; Allmendinger, 2011; Baker and Wong 2012). Growth was to be supported at a
sub-regional level through a top-down, macro-approach focussed on identifying
growth areas and with targets formulated through strategic policy. Cambridge was
explicitly backed by Labour and included as one of four major growth areas identified
in the Sustainable Communities Plan (ODPM 2003a) and then RSS, with Cambridge
cited as somewhere Government wanted to see development ‘accelerated’: “the
issue is not whether growth will continue, but at what level and how that growth is
handled” (ODPM 2003b, 7). The 2003 Plan was described as ‘an aspirational planning
framework’ (Raco 2012: 156), premised on the notion that as economic and
population growth were inevitable, the planning system should support growth in
places such as Cambridge where that potential could be realised. In practice many
saw reforms as characteristic of an approach begun in previous decades towards
supporting growth in places predisposed for success, argued to be to the economic
advantage of all. Those such as Raco (2012) thus saw RSSs as a manifestation of an
explicitly neo-liberal, growth-first strategy, ‘roll out’ or ‘interventionist’ neoliberalism, involving active state-building through prescriptive planning guidance and
national house-building targets focussed on supply side activities - oriented towards
the delivery of higher levels of new housing and economic growth. This was
perceived as a ‘dramatic’ up-scaling of the planning system (Marshall 2007), and
privileged strategic thinking and focussed spaces of intervention at the regional level.
There is every sign that the current Coalition Government equally wishes to
support the economic success of Cambridge. Unlocking growth in cities (HM
Government, 2011) outlined plans for ‘city deals’ to give cities with growth
prospects, including Cambridge, freedoms to invest. The Heseltine Review (2012),
seen by many as currently having a strong influence on the Coalition’s approach to
city-regions, cites Cambridge as the sort of strong city economy from which
economic benefit would be derived by tackling challenges such as housing shortage.
A city-deal for Cambridge, which could bring up to £500million to the sub-region to
invest in infrastructure to support growth, is currently under negotiation (see Elliott
2014), and the Chancellor’s pledge of continuing support for the City in his 2014
speech has been noted earlier (HM Treasury 2014).
Whilst competitiveness and growth remain the language of government, the
Coalition’s strategy to support growth has, however, clearly shifted. The ‘top-down
targets’ of the previous government were criticised as undemocratic, creating a
generation of NIMBYs and so acting as a brake on competitiveness. The new rhetoric
was that of ‘localism’, focussed on local authorities determining their own strategic
direction, albeit within the context the National Planning Policy Framework – a form
of 'roll-back’ as opposed to ‘roll-out’ neo liberalism' with less emphasis on regulating
and directing and more on enabling and anticipating development (Boland 2014).
The discourse, at least at a rhetorical level, privileges, or ‘re-animates’, the local
(Davoudi et al, 2013; Padley, 2013; Haughton and Allmendinger, 2013) with
responsibility for decision making supposedly ‘returned to town halls’ (Gallent and
Robinson, 2012). This language has been deployed alongside a discourse of the
further dismantling of the state (Deas 2012), yet strong state direction in the form of
the localism bill indicates that local planning powers must be used to promote ‘more
not less development’. The Coalition clearly therefore intends its reforms and
associated vision of localism – with its emphasis on community empowerment, local
autonomy and local decision making – to offer a more tangible chance of achieving
growth than its predecessors. As Inch (2012b) argues, Grant Schapps’ stated
intentions of “turning NIMBYs into homebuilders”, is a “rhetorical move that
constructs opposition to development as a perverse effect of flaws in the existing
planning system that can be corrected through reform” (522).
Planning reform and the new localism
The Conservative Party had signalled its intention to abolish Regional Spatial
Strategies (RSS) and top-down housing targets ahead of the 2010 general election
and the incoming Coalition Government moved quickly to put this into effect. Seen
by many as the most radical reform of the planning system in the post-war period,
the Localism Act 2011 included the legal power to abolish RSS and the final version of
the National Planning Policy Framework (CLG 2012b) set out the principles for
planning under ‘localism’. This amounted to the abolition of any form of strategic or
spatial planning across England as a whole (Boddy and Hickman, 2013), in marked
contrast not only to Scotland and Wales but also mainland Europe as a whole where
the principles practice of spatial planning remain central (Faludi 2010; Walsh, 2014).
As described elsewhere (Holman and Rydin, 2012; Haughton et al, 2013; Boddy and
Hickman, 2013; Gallent et al 2013; Jones 2014) the NPPF included a ‘presumption in
favour of sustainable development’ described as ‘a golden thread running through
both plan-making and decision-taking’ (CLG, 2012b, 3). There was a strong emphasis
on ensuring that the planning system ‘does everything it can to support sustainable
economic growth’ (ibid, 6). This provoked fierce opposition from local and national
groups who feared this represented a ‘developer’s charter’. In practice, however, the
NPPF clearly stated the principle that all applications would be determined ‘In
accordance with the development plan’ (ibid, 3). An approved local plan would
therefore give a local council the basis on which to control development in line with
locally-determined constraints.
Most local councils, nationally, did not have up-to-date local plans in place
and therefore rapidly set about either drawing up new ‘core strategies’, or rapidly
revising strategies in draft, in line with the requirements set out in the new NPPF.
Plans were to be based on evidence of future housing need and councils had a ‘duty
to cooperate’ with neighbouring councils where development needs could not be
met within their own boundary. Approval of plans is subject to examination in public
and confirmation by a government appointed inspector who has to be satisfied,
among other things, that plans properly reflect evidence of housing need and that
councils have complied with the duty to cooperate. There is evidence that Inspectors
are increasingly questioning the adequacy of evidence of future housing need, and
conformity with the duty-to-cooperate as well as other issues (Planning Inspectorate,
2012; Carpenter, 2014; Geoghegan 2014). A number of recent cases suggest that
inspectors are raising more questions, possibly encouraged by central government,
concerned at constraints on housing delivery and economic growth, and these cases
begin to expose the contrast between local perspective and national priorities.
Despite this, the process did, initially at least, allow councils to make the case
that levels of housing need were significantly lower than housing targets previously
set out for their locality in RSS. This is what many local councils across southern
England set out to do with the aim of cutting back on planned levels of housing
development, in line as they saw it, with the wishes of local communities and
electors - and the new localism. A national survey in 2012 (Tetlow King, 2012)
showed the extent of these planned reductions, 273,000 down across England as a
whole compared with targets set out in Regional Spatial Strategies and with the
majority of larger local councils across southern England planning significantly lower
levels of house building. These reductions have largely been in places where ‘levels
of antagonism and opposition’ (Inch 2012b) to growth are high, often in Conservative
heartlands, and critically, in areas where increasing levels of development is
potentially important to economic growth. The evidence thus begins to expose some
of the potentially competing objectives and challenges of pursuing a neo-liberal
growth narrative through a governance model focused at the local level where
conflict is most keenly felt.
Other studies have detailed this process at a more local level (Hamiddudin and
Gallent, 2012; Valler et al, 2012 for Science-Vale in Oxfordshire). We have described
elsewhere how the four local authorities in the Bristol city-region reduced planned
housing numbers by over 35,000, a 30% reduction on RSS targets, and revoked plans
for significant urban extensions and green belt revision (Boddy and Hickman, 2013).
In stark contrast to the picture across much of prosperous southern England,
the five local councils in Cambridgeshire and the County Council itself acted swiftly
following the announcement that RSS was to be abolished to produce a joint
statement, publicly reaffirming their commitment to a strategy for growth in the subregion:
“The Cambridgeshire authorities remain committed to the strategy for
planning in the County, including the provision of housing, as originally
established by the Structure Plan and as now partially set out in saved
Structure Plan policies and as reflected by the policies and site proposals in
the Cambridge Local Plan and District Councils’ Development Plan
Documents” (Cambridgeshire Authorities 2010, section 2.1.)
This reaffirmed a commitment to the existing planning strategy - to growth plans
originally set out in the 2003 Structure Plan and subsequently incorporated in the
policies and proposals of the district councils.8 The authorities also jointly agreed to
set up formal governance structures initially, in response to abolition of RSS – but
subsequently seen as fulfilling the need to demonstrate compliance with the new
‘duty to cooperate’9. These included the cross-authority, Joint Strategic Planning and
Transport Members Group and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Strategic
Planning Unit – the latter of which describes its purpose as being to “coordinate
work on the production of a high level, non-statutory spatial framework for
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough on behalf of the constituent local authorities”
(C&P JSPU 2012b). The Unit has also produced a report detailing ‘objectively
assessed housing need’ for all the local authority areas (C&P JSPU, 2013) to provide a
common evidence base for the constituent local authority as they developed their
new local plans or ‘core strategies’.10 Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire have also continued to operate joint development control
committees to deal with fringe sites and new settlements. As both councils started
to develop their new core strategies, consultation on ‘issues and options’ included a
range of growth trajectories including the possibility of a significant increase in levels
of house-building which had been set out in RSS – again in marked contrast to many
local authorities across southern England. At the time the research reported here
was under way, this opened up major debate over the future of the city-region
including levels of housing and economic growth, the green belt and the capacity of
the city region to accommodate further expansion. The study was based on a
combination of face to face interviews and documentary analysis. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with some fifteen respondents including local authority
officers and elected members (current and former), planning and development
8
Interestingly this rather convoluted statement avoided reference to RSS itself which was under review at the
time – proposals to increase housing targets were potentially contentious which may explain this absence.
9
Minutes of the Cambridge and Peterborough Joint Strategic Planning Unit (2012a) demonstrate concern over
the need to demonstrate cooperation in the light of the Inspector’s views on Bath and North East Somerset
draft Core Strategy
10
This provided a key component of the required ‘Strategic Housing Market Assessment’ (Carpenter 2013, 26).
consultants, housebuilders and developers, preservation society members and a
range of other stakeholders. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and a thematic
analysis undertaken using NVIVO qualitative analysis software. A number of followup ‘phone interviews were conducted with key informants to cross-check and update
the original research. Drawing on this research, the following sections set out the
response, locally to planning reform and the possible implications for the future
trajectory of the city-region.
The significance of RSS and reaction to abolition
The introduction of Regional Spatial Strategies and to top down targets for housing
numbers had been highly controversial across southern England as a whole.
Respondents in the Cambridge city-region however, typically referred instead to the
way in which growth had been embraced earlier through regional planning guidance
and the 2003 Structure Plan and simply rolled forwards into the RSS. RSS itself and
provisions set out for the city-region were in this sense non-controversial. Many
stakeholders recalled the detail of the earlier debate framed by the work of the
Cambridge Futures Group that preceded RPG6 and the 2003 Structure Plan and it
was this, rather than processes around RSS which seem to have been more
significant to the development of the growth narrative in the city-region:
We’d already set out aims and ambitions through the Structure Plan. They were
ours. The RSS was, in strategic direction terms, immaterial (Senior local authority
officer).
By and large the scale of ambition and the nature of it as defined in the
Structure Plan was rolled forward into the East of England Plan and it’s carried
on being rolled forward following the demise of the RSS. There’s real continuity
before during and after and I don’t think there’s any evidence around here really
that the loss of regional planning has adversely affected growth … My sense is
that Cambridge was never doing it because it was told to. It did it because
actually it wanted something out of it which it largely has got … It was never
really constructed as a fight with central government, so the changing wider
planning framework hasn’t had a great impact on Cambridge. I think it has had a
big impact on lots of other places so I think Cambridge is a bit unusual, but it’s
benefitted from good leadership really despite its local government boundaries
which are not helpful (Economic development consultant).
As one respondent commented, the strategy for Cambridge was possibly: ‘the least
controversial in England” (Planning consultant).11
11
The proposed housing numbers in the East of England Plan published in 2008 for Cambridge City
were only marginally up on those in the 2003 Structure Plan on a per annum basis and numbers for
South Cambridgeshire were almost identical (see table 1). There was some suggestion that revised
figures proposed in the later review of the East of England Plan looked somewhat “over-inflated”
(Planning consultant), there was no strong sense that the local authorities themselves were pushing
to cut back on the growth figures to any significant degree.
This perception that the RSS was in a sense ‘immaterial’ in strategic terms shaped
reaction to RSS abolition and marks out the sub-region in contrast to many other
parts of England facing significant development pressure. In these other areas,
reaction to abolition was typically polarised between those, mainly local councillors
and residents’ groups, jubilant at the prospect of locally determined plans and the
potential for reduced targets, and those, mainly from the development sector, who
bemoaned the loss of strategic planning and the perceived impact of this on delivery
(Boddy and Hickman, 2013).
There was also a clear expectation amongst many stakeholders that support
for the growth agenda locally would continue despite the demise of the RSS. Many
referred to the statement referred to earlier that was issued by Cambridgeshire
authorities expressing their on-going commitment to growth and expressed pride
that this had been made publically at a time of recession, when many local
authorities were seeking to go in the opposition direction:
We understand why government wants to remove top down targetry through
abolition of RSS, but we still believe in our spatial strategy and will continue to
try and pursue it … I had this meeting with four leaders, all of them
Conservatives on the morning that Caroline Spelman put out some statement
urging Conservative Authorities to not comply with RSS and without me
prompting it, they all went, ‘but this is our Plan, we don’t need to withdraw
consent from RSS’, … we’d got the bottom up consent for growth (Senior local
authority officer).
Even a respondent from the Cambridge Preservation Society observed that ‘There’s
very little opposition to the idea that there needs to be growth’. The fact that the
Cambridge sub-region had experienced the benefits of growth – through, for
example, associated infrastructure investment - was clearly significant in retaining
the consensus on growth. Many also spoke of the strong and enduring political
leadership in the sub-region, and the ability of the players to engage in cross-party
debate about what was best for the sub-region:
We seem not to have suffered too greatly [from RSS abolition] partly because in
the expectation that the RSS would go, we all got together and said we rather
like the growth strategy that we adopted. Furthermore, the one that we were
working on, the East of England Plan review we quite like that too and we’d like
everyone to remain aware of that. It was essentially a message to developers
and to some extent the government, business and anyone with a financial
interest in development in and around Cambridgeshire, not to panic, that local
authorities were going to stick with the growth agenda and ironically, even
though we’ve seen lots of councils around the country wanting to reduce the
housing numbers, our districts all seemed terribly keen to have quite a lot of
growth and that’s partly because we’ve all got used to growth and we rather like
it (Elected member, Conservative).
Much was also made of the cross-authority Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint
Strategic Planning Unit (JSPU) set up to co-ordinate work assessing housing need
across the area, and to develop an high level non statutory spatial framework but
also to help demonstrate compliance with the ‘duty to co-operate’ about which
there was some nervousness locally:
Our role as a small unit is to help bind the authorities together badged under the
duty to cooperate … That’s the main raison d’etre for us, it’s to support them on
collective work on the evidence base for local plan reviews, but also, in the
absence of a strategic statutory plan, to have something that can demonstrate a
more concrete output based way the way that these plans add up to more than
hopefully the some of their parts across a wider area, to be a spatial framework
… the crude way of describing it is a light touch structure plan for
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (Local Authority Officer).
Indeed, the ability of partners in the region to agree to establish a joint unit, one of
only a handful nationally, was cited as evidence of both the maturity of the debate
over growth and the strength of the relationship across authorities and between
political parties:
Cambridgeshire is abnormal it its level of appreciation of the need to work
together and a generally shared ambition about what we want to do and it’s
pro-growth … The proposal that I put forward was, let’s have a Joint Strategic
Planning Unit because you know, actually we want to keep working on this
together. For so long we’ve tried to work on these things together, we recognise
the economic geography and therefore, going back into being only parochial is
bad, isn’t it? And everyone went, yes, let’s try to do that. They [politicians]
readily committed to the Joint Strategic Planning Unit (Senior local authority
officer).
Prospects for an enduring growth agenda under localism
As indicated, the growth narrative in the city-region had been strongly established
prior to the introduction of RSS and appeared to survive its abolition unscathed –
abolition was not seen, as it was in many other places, as the opportunity to scale
back growth plans and house building targets. RSS became more of a vehicle,
carrying forward the established narrative rather than an entirely new chapter in the
story. Local plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire were both at the ‘issues
and options’ stage at the time the research was conducted. The consultation
included options for growth that both continued and exceeded the trajectories
originally set out in the 2003 Structure Plan and RSS (see table 1). Respondents also
highlighted the fact that plans were being prepared to joint timetables and with
parallel consultation exercises. The sense, that localism would inevitably result in
rolling back on established targets for growth was not therefore seen as an
immediate prospect. As one local authority officer stated emphatically, “the line [on
growth] has held pretty well, despite a lot of challenges”. There was, nevertheless,
concern over the demise of both RSS and, prior to this, the long established structure
plan:
Without having that strategic framework, particularly for housing and
employment provision, Local Authorities are all going to be on their own …
losing the RSS in particular has caused us concerns about how Local Authorities
are going to forecast the employment and population requirements. (Planning
consultant).
Some respondents questioned whether this could, in the longer term, presage a
fragmentation of policy objectives and weaken commitment to established targets
for growth. There was a sense of more challenging times ahead in a number of
respects: clarity of ownership of the growth agenda going forwards; potentially
increasing local opposition to growth; the continuing capacity of the local authorities
to work together; issues of delivery; and, finally, the potential effectiveness of nonstatutory strategic arrangements. All of these can be seen as manifestations of
‘localism’ as such.
Looking at these in turn, first, many stakeholders cited a lack of clarity from
Central Government on the relationship between ‘localism’ and ‘growth’ and felt
that this had created a level of uncertainty that had the potential to allow tensions to
(re-)emerge:
I think we've got two planning systems: one that’s being designed by CLG and
one that has been designed by the treasury and the treasury has won out
unsurprisingly again … we had Eric Pickles, Grant Shapps and others talking
about localism very strongly and we had George Osborne and others coming
forward with a strong view that in terms of supporting construction, economic
growth - the needs of the country - housing supply needs to be boosted (Local
authority representative).
One developer referred to the ‘shifting ground’ on localism, making it difficult for
local authorities – and other partners – to know how to act and raising questions
about the clarity and ownership of the growth agenda. Whereas elsewhere localism
had been seized upon as a vehicle for resisting growth, the commitment made by the
Cambridgeshire authorities to continue a strategy for growth was seen by some as
very much in the spirit of ‘localism’ - the growth strategy was perceived in the subregion as ‘our strategy’ rather than the dictate of Central Government. There
remained, however, the potential for fragmentation and divergence of views at a
local level.
Second many participants clearly perceived the increased potential, at least,
for communities, local authorities and other stakeholders to seek to resist
‘unwanted’ development. Some felt that localism, as interpreted by local politicians,
would mean that local, rather than wider concerns, would gain the ascendance:
“particularly at the edge of the Cambridge” (Preservation society representative)
with:
South Cambridgeshire in particular … trying to manipulate the Strategic Housing
Market Assessment figures to restrain levels of growth below those previously
accepted. (Planning consultant).
We are witnessing the beginnings of some degree of restraint over and above
the levels that existed before. (Developer).
The possibility of further land release from the green belt in particular was seen as
increasingly contentious: “some would say, actually that it’s sensible to look again,
and others that we’ve done it once, not yet” (Senior local authority officer]. Others
who had hitherto supported growth questioned whether this should continue at the
same rate:
I think there's a genuine feeling which I entirely understand that actually we've
taken a significant amount of growth and planned for it and therefore looking at
the same again, it's potentially something that both politically, physically,
practicably isn't really very acceptable and therefore we may need to temper
this (Local Authority Officer).
Developers in particular, felt that localism posed a significant challenge to the extent
to which growth, particularly at the higher end of the potential growth scenarios set
out in issues and options consultations might be realised. One was convinced that
“having offered three levels of growth based on different forecasts, I think they will
go for a lower option”. Loss of RSS, meant there was now felt to be greater
uncertainty over future support for the implementation of large schemes, despite
public pronouncements on growth in the sub-region. Strategic planning was, with
hindsight, perceived to have helped to manage some of these tensions and protected
the ‘growth agenda’ from more local level perspectives and political challenge.
Under localism, divergent views, cross-boundary differences and local opposition
could potentially emerge. Strategic planning gave “clarity” over the previous Labour
government’s growth plans, a sense that they were “pushing at an open door”.
There was therefore, a heightened sense that localism could impact on the growth
agenda.
It was suggested that the stipulation in the National Planning Policy
Framework that housing need be ‘objectively assessed’ and the more “hard-edged
approach” (local authority officer) that Inspectors were now taking in relation to
evidence might be very challenging, given the strength of the local economy:
… the other irony is, that when people are required to do a new strategic
housing market settlement and it comes up with numbers which exceed the
allocations that the RSS gave them they are put in a bit of a quandary, what do
we do now? (Elected member, Conservative).
So the sort of statement within the NPPF about what is your objectively assessed
need in an area that is economically strong is proving to be very challenging
(Local Authority Officer).
Any emerging opposition to growth under localism might therefore be challenged by
the requirement for evidence-based planning and pressures for growth – tensions
which had previously been managed through formal structures and processes at a
strategic level.
Third, the capacity of local authorities and other partners, in the past, to work
together across potential geographical and political boundaries was widely
acknowledged. The possibility that localism could challenge this was seen as a real
possibility, particularly on the part of elected members, potentially most directly
exposed to these tensions, one (Conservative) member suggesting that the
consensus on growth “could well disintegrate”.
… there’s certainly more resistance this time and the duty to co-operate
involves all sorts of risks and uncertainties (Elected member, Conservative).
If there were a change in political direction in one or the other council, then that
could jeopardise that (Elected member, Labour).
It is very difficult to second guess because you’re not sure whether they’re going
to stay with the same strategy or go off in sort of different directions. It could
become extremely political (Planning Consultant).
Similarly, the ‘duty to co-operate’ under the NPPF was at one level second
nature: “that’s simply how we work here” (Elected member, Conservative), but
its capacity to act as a conflict resolution mechanism when put under pressure
was also seen as a potential issue:
If you can't accommodate it [growth] in your area then you’ve got to
accommodate it somewhere else, that’s what the duty to co-operate is about those are the sort of debates we’re having at the moment, that are actually
proving pretty challenging. (Local Authority Officer).
The fourth challenge relates to the capacity of the sub-region to actually deliver
on planned housing development – and the implications of this for the future
trajectory of growth in the sub-region. If the development sector could not
demonstrate its capacity to deliver levels of housing development provided for under
the current planning framework then arguments about significant levels of future
growth would be hard to sustain. This focuses on the issue of so-called ‘stalled sites’,
land with planning permission which developers had, for a variety of reasons, been
slow to develop but which potentially undermine the argument for significant levels
of new allocations of land in future plans. Different stakeholders expressed both
surprise and frustration at the fact that despite the clear framework for growth
established in the 2003 structure plan, and high levels of housing demand, sites had
been slow to be developed: “even in an area like Cambridge where you’ve got very
high land values” (national body representative). If sites allocated a decade ago still
had not been delivered it would be hard to argue for significant additional land
release, particularly if that involved release of land in the green belt:
There was big ambition for development to come forward quite quickly I guess
on the back of the 2003 Structure Plan. I mean with hindsight some of the
things that were in there were quite unrealistic and challenging, probably the
biggest one of all being Northstowe having made a start in terms of planning
by 2006 and we’re now into 2013 and we haven't had a brick laid (Local
authority officer).
There may be public acceptance for delivery of the existing strategy, but a strategy
which extends the growth projections considerably beyond that already agreed –
may prove more difficult in the context of the perceived success and pace of delivery
of existing plans.
Also relevant to delivery was the considerable frustration in the sub-region
over Central Government’s handling of resources to support growth and key
decisions made on infrastructure funding – possibly more so than the planning
context as such: Oddly it’s not the political nimbyism stuff … it’s the cash thing (Local
authority officer).
What has started to become more difficult is this question of funding. Part of
what’s always made the growth acceptable has been the level of corollary
investment in infrastructure. As our grant income shrinks, as our social care
costs in particular go very rapidly north, we don’t have anything left to cover off
the capital investment. So for the first time, in very recent weeks really, I’ve
heard politicians going, can we afford this? … we still realise this is important for
the UK economy and everything else but we can’t not have a balanced budget.
(Senior Local Authority Officer).
There was a feeling that there is less Government funding available to support
growth now – particular infrastructure funding - than over the previous decade. Real
or otherwise, this was clearly shaping opinion. The view locally was that if Central
Government wants to support areas in delivering the growth agenda and with places
like Cambridge well placed to contribute, then Government needs to offer a more
proactive and supportive approach. Some were cynical, suggesting that ‘localism’
could allow Central Government to ‘get away’ with less financial support for growth
– in contrast to the previous administration with its explicitly more macro approach.
Others thought that successive Governments had compounded slow delivery
particularly where they were owners or part-owners of sites which they were
reluctant to release
Finally, the lack of formal strategic structures and processes represents perhaps
the most serious challenge. The Cambridge sub-region, possibly more than any other
part of the country, had established structures and governance which could provide
an ongoing strategic perspective. As one planning consultant put it:
I am bemoaning in general terms [the loss of strategic planning.] I think it’s an
absolute total disaster to be honest, but I think Cambridge is the one exception that
I’ve seen that has had good enough local leadership and sensible people with a long
enough perspective to be able to deal with it (Economic Development Consultant).
These mechanisms, initially at least, had channelled and managed potentially
divergent views on the part of the constituent local authorities, providing a
consensual but strategic dimension to structures and processes. The question is
whether these can survive in the longer term, in the absence of any formal strategic
framework:
… in the absence of strategic planning, you’re always going to struggle because a
District Council strategy on its own won’t ever match the economic realities. So
the single reason that you need strategic planning is to match reality and if you
don’t do that, you’ll basically hamper the economy’s ability to function
effectively, and people’s ability to access employment effectively. You might
abolish RSS but replacing them with nothing, with no structure plans or anything
else, is pretty bonkers, it's pretty crazy when actually one of your key objectives
is trying to boost housing growth. (Senior local authority officer).
Initially, at least, there had already under localism been a subtle but significant shift
in the strategic dimension – from an ‘overarching’ framework to ‘underpinning’ “strategic planning by stealth” as one local authority officer described it:
Quite carefully, we always describe it as being ‘underpinning’ not ‘overarching’.
So we recognise that sovereignty is with the Local Plan, but by having an
underpinning framework through the JSPU, it creates an environment in which
we hope the individual local plans will already try to speak to each other before
they come out. Now it’s not perfect, but it might be the best you can do in the
circumstances. The test will be in looking at what happens when the local Plans
come out (Senior Local Authority Officer).
As this suggests, the key question is whether such structures and forms of
governance are stable in the longer term or prove to be a step towards the further
disintegration of ‘strategic planning’ based on collaboration and consent rather than
the formal structures of the previous decade.
Conclusion
For much of the post-war period, growth and development in the Cambridge cityregion was tightly constrained by the greenbelt and planning framework established
in the immediate post-war period. This was despite rapidly rising house prices, the
university’s wish to expand and increasing pressure for university-linked, high
technology business growth driven by the emerging Cambridge Phenomenon. The
period 1989-2003, however, saw a major shift in the overall planning context. This
included revisions to the County Structure Plan followed by Regional Planning
Guidance in 2000 which established the strategic context for growth and
comprehensive review of the green belt, and the 2003 Structure Plan which provided
for major housing growth and land release from the green belt. This strategy for subregional growth was then rolled forwards in the 2008 Regional Spatial Strategy for
the East of England including explicit targets for significantly increased housing
numbers.
Evidence points to a combination of factors both driving and shaping this
major shift in strategy and continuing commitment, since then, to growth and
development. It was increasingly recognised that long-term constraint combined
with pressures of population growth were reflected in rapid house price inflation,
problems of housing affordability, piecemeal development in settlements beyond the
greenbelt and congestion in the urban core. University plans for both academic
development and support for linked research and technology-based business
development were increasingly frustrated, combined with external pressure for
business investment and the view from central government of Cambridge as a focus
for knowledge-based economic development. In this context, Cambridge Futures,
initiated by the University but bringing together stakeholders from the local councils,
business and the University, played a key role, enabling the consensus for growth to
emerge through option setting, evidence gathering, consultation and debate. The
timing of this, ahead of the structure plan review was seen as crucial. So too was
the capacity of council leaders both district and county, to collaborate around the
growth agenda and across party-political lines, but this, in turn depended, upon the
support of local communities and electors – and the judgement of elected councillors
that the overall balance of opinion had shifted in favour of managed expansion. In
practical terms, Cambridge Horizons, set up and funded following the Government’s
2004 Sustainable Communities Plan, which recognized the national significance of
the sub-region, was an important vehicle for implementing and managing growth
and development. Key infrastructure investments including the guided bus route
and plans for a new station adjacent to the Science Park also demonstrated practical
support.
Proposals nationally by the opposition Conservative Party ahead of the 2010
General Election, to abolish RSS, reiterated once in office, led many local councils
across prosperous southern England to announce plans to scale back levels of
development and top-down targets for housing growth in particular which had been
set out in RSS. Many set out to incorporate significantly reduced housing numbers in
proposed ‘core strategies’ required under the new National Planning Policy
Framework. In sharp contrast to this, the five Cambridgeshire local councils and the
County Council itself strongly reaffirmed their continued strategic commitment to
growth as set out in the Structure Plan and existing local plans.12 The momentum
and broad-based support behind planned growth and expansion in the Cambridge
city-region in particular was such that using the opportunity provided by RSS
abolition to review this or even consider reverting to the earlier regime of constraint
was never going to be seriously considered. Indicative of this, housing numbers
included in local plans or ‘Core Strategies’ submitted by Cambridge City and South
Cambridgeshire councils in 2014 were only marginally lower than those included in
initially in the 2003 Structure Plan and later in RSS.
12
As noted earlier the statement did not explicitly refer to the RSS, possibly for reasons of political sensitivity
given that proposals to expand housing targets had been under review – existing RSS proposals were however
consistent with Structure and Local Plan proposals referred to in the statement.
Initially at least, the growth consensus clearly survived the abolition of RSS
and the demise of strategic planning in a formal sense. As we have seen, the subregion has frequently been held up as an exemplar of collaboration and the
successful management of growth and development (see also Platt, 2013, Monk et al
2013). A key question is, however, the ability of this consensus to survive in the
context of recession, austerity, the new National Planning Policy Framework and the
advent of localism. The Town and Country Planning Association (2010, 2) noted
that: “… fragility is especially common where the need for collaborative working is at
its most intense – in and around tightly bounded urban areas where expansion
pressures bearing upon the neighbouring countryside are strong”. There was
certainly little appetite, locally, to consider higher levels of growth – proposed
upwards revision of housing targets in the original East of England Plan and the
possibility of enhanced levels of growth included in options consulted on for local
plans gained little support. The authorities also decided against preparing a joint
core strategy – an option that was discussed, but discounted - as not politically
viable. As noted earlier, there was also a growing feeling expressed by a number of
stakeholders, particularly in South Cambridgeshire, that significant growth had
already been accepted and that there was growing resistance to further expansion,
as representing a step too far. Localism is clearly ‘an artificial construct’ (Ludwig and
Ludwig, 2014) with strong political motivations (Gallent et al, 2013). Setting the
context for the local plan consultation and review process, it has however, provided
a vehicle for greater questioning of the growth, particularly in South Cambridgeshire,
legitimising such views. Consensus around growth was seen as increasingly fragile in
the face of increasing resistance to further expansion. Localism has, at the very least,
generated increasing risk and uncertainty. This was emphasised in the relatively
narrow margin in South Cambridgeshire in support of the proposed Core Strategy
which attracted some 11,000 objections and was approved by a majority of only 27
in favour, 21 against and 5 abstentions. Localism does therefore appear to have
fragmented to some extent the growth consensus, with continued support for
expansion now clearly potentially vulnerable to relatively small shifts in the political
make-up of the local councils, particularly South Cambridgeshire 13 but also on the
County Council, which previously had been considered significant to brokering
consensus on growth (While et al 2004). Opposition has the potential to become
highly politicised, and evidence from the Cambridge sub-region shows that it is as
potentially vulnerable to political volatility as the next place.
The impact of any such shift is unlikely to be significant, however, in the short
to medium term at least and these shifts do appear more subtle than elsewhere.
13
In May 2014 elections when a third of each council were up for decision, Labour gained control of the City of
Cambridge (formerly no party was in overall control) gaining 7 seats from the liberal democrats and if anything
strengthening support for expansion. There was little change in South Cambridgeshire where the
conservatives remained the controlling party by a large margin. The leader of the council commented after
the election that: ‘There’s also been a lot of controversy over the [local] plan and I hope this shows we still have
the confidence of most people that we are doing our best’. http://www.cambridgenews.co.uk/Cambridge/Elections-2014-
There is a high volume of development already provided for in current planning
permissions and approved plans including significant schemes among them the
university-led expansion on the north west of the city now underway. Submitted
local plans are, moreover, consistent with the established trajectory of growth and
development and, subject to confirmation by the planning inspectorate, will provide
a binding context for planning decisions locally over the next five years at
least.14With one plan in the wider sub-region (Fenland) already having received
endorsement of the sub-regional approach to the duty to co-operate and evidence
gathering (see Planning Inspectorate 2014), it would be a brave inspector to
challenge the evidence in relation to Cambridge, despite some commentary that the
numbers proposed still fall short of what is required for anticipated growth in the
Cambridge economy (see Carpenter 2013) [HH – this red paragraph could be a
footnote?]. In the context of housing market pressures and central government
pressure to support economic growth it would seem highly unlikely that this process
would result in any reduction in proposed housing numbers or economic
development. The impacts of localism in the city-region have, however, exposed the
tensions between the government’s meta-narrative in support of growth and
development epitomised by the Cambridge Phenomenon and the new National
Planning Policy Framework which has dismantled strategic planning and enabled the
potentially destabilising discourse of localism which, if this survives any future
change in central government alignment, could have more significant effects in the
medium to longer term. At the very least, localism poses greater risks for the
Cambridge Phenomenon compared with the previous system which more clearly
provided a strategic framework in support of growth.
Attempts by successive governments to use the planning system overtly to
drive economic growth have often been framed as a form of neo-liberal strategy,
promoting growth, development and private sector investment being interpreted,
loosely, as support for market forces. Strategic planning in the form of structure
plans, regional planning guidance, regional spatial strategies and specific initiatives
such as the Sustainable Communities Plan however, clearly represented more overt
state intervention and state action to frame and promote development rather than a
rolling back of the state and freeing up of market forces as such. Forms of
intervention may have shifted over time with the transition from the Thatcher era
charted by Crang and Martin to the Blair Governments’ ‘third way’ and the more
recent push for ‘sustainable development’ set out in the NPPF. They represent,
however, neoliberalism only in the sense of their support for private sector-driven
growth and development rather than any freeing up of market forces in relation to
land and development. As Allmendinger (2009) noted, Hayek himself pointed
14
With one plan in the wider sub-region (Fenland) already having received endorsement of the subregional approach to the duty to co-operate and evidence gathering (see Planning Inspectorate
2014), it would be a brave inspector to challenge the evidence in relation to Cambridge, despite
some commentary that the numbers proposed still fall short of what is required for anticipated
growth in the Cambridge economy (see Carpenter 2013)
specifically to the different nature of the market in land and the role of regulation in
relation to land and development which set it apart in this respect.
Localism and the new planning framework might, at one level, be seen as a
form of neo-liberalism in practice, with the abolition of strategic planning and, much
emphasis in the NPPF on simplifying and slashing back the accumulated mass of
planning regulation and leaving local communities to set the framework for decision
making through locally-driven strategies. At one level this aligns with the classic neoliberal project to roll back the state, dismantle bureaucratic structures and red tape,
and deregulate markets. The reality, as the tensions between the coalition
government’s continuing drive for growth and the impacts, real or potential, of
localism demonstrate, is rather different. Localism, is far from a ‘freeing up of
market forces’. As we have seen, it provides, on the contrary, the potential basis for
place-based local communities actively to constrain and resist growth, development
and private-market driven investment, closer to what might be termed neoconservatism than neo-liberalism. In the absence of any strategic planning
framework or externally-determined growth targets central government now has to
rely on exhortation plus the capacity of the planning inspectorate to ensure that local
plans adequately provide for (short-term) development needs and that neighbouring
local authorities demonstrate co-operation – a loosely coupled system, focused at a
local level and with short-time horizons. In this context, the Chancellor’s eulogy for
the Cambridge Phenomenon could be seen more as a direct appeal to the voters in
South Cambridgeshire ahead of local elections later in the month, not to derail the
growth project which he framed as symbolising the national ambitions of
government.
Finally, as noted, the reaction in the Cambridge sub-region to abolition of RSS
and top-down targets contrasted with that across most of economically buoyant
southern England. This raises two related questions: first, the extent to which the
Cambridge experience represents a unique case, determined by a specific history and
set of circumstances; second, whether there are implications for other parts of the
country either in terms of understanding processes and outcomes, or in terms of
informing policy agendas. A number of commentators have noted the particular
features of the Cambridge sub-region. These include the exceptional status and
profile of the University, its openness to spin-out and industry linkage, the role of
Trinity College as a landowner and founder of Cambridge Science Park and the desire
of the university to maintain and expand its activities and reputation driving
development including most recently that at North West Cambridge. This and the
nature of the historic urban environment together with proximity to London has
made it a highly attractive location for entrepreneurs, investors and professionals as
a place to live and work – and enabled businesses readily to attract a scientific and
professional workforce. The relatively small scale of the city-region has enhanced
this attractiveness, has meant the university has been a more dominant influence
than might otherwise have been the case15 and has facilitated the networking which
drove the Cambridge Phenomenon itself (Keeble, 1989).
This served to reinforce the dominant discourse of the city-region as a
technology-driven, dynamic cluster of national and international significance – a
discourse which has been widely shared across different stakeholders. It was this
discourse which, growing in strength through the 1970s and 1980s led to the seachange in the sub-regional planning framework after 1989. The political acceptability
of this major policy shift reflected both pressures from the university, business and
other stakeholders articulated through Cambridge Futures together with the
realisation on the part of politicians of all parties that there was, on balance, popular,
electoral support in favour of growth, with political leaders becoming enthusiastic
partners in the growth consensus captured initially in the 2003 Structure Plan and
subsequently, RSS. This in turn provided the context for what have been, from the
standpoint of other localities, very effective leadership and collaborative working
relations between the local authorities which survived through to the submission of
core strategies in 2014, albeit, as noted above, some weakening perhaps in the
underpinning consensus.16
This complex set of factors combining over several decades does suggest a
signficant degree of uniqueness, reinforced by what we have termed the emergence
of a dominant discourse which permeated different stakeholders and interests and
which coalesced around a particular vision and future trajectory for the city region. 17
Some have suggested that abolition of RSS and top-down targets may open up a an
era of ‘post-political’ diversity, a period of experimentation and innovation as
different governance models are explored (Allmendinger and Haughton 2013,
Haughton et al 2013, Raco 2012 and Deas 2012). The strong element of continuity
evident in the case of Cambridge, however, runs counter to this view. Collaboration
between local councils and the sorts of new joint structures and working
arrangements seen in the Cambridge city-region are more an attempt to maintain
this continuity, and to secure established approaches rather than evidence of the
emergence of ‘soft spaces’ and experimentation.
Writers from Sayer (1992) on have cautioned against looking for easy policy
pointers from the experience of places like Silicon Valley, Berkshire and the Thames
Valley or in this case Cambridge (see also Mazzucato, 2014). It is possible,
nevertheless, to identify, more modestly, a number of issues of potentially wider
relevance. First, the particular role of Cambridge University, historically, is in many
ways unique but points to the potential greater role that universities might play in
shaping or driving the trajectory of their host-areas - recognised by Goddard, for
15
Compared for example to the role of Oxford University within its city-region
Symptomatic perhaps of a perceived weakening in support for the growth agenda, a new, business-led
organisation, Cambridge Ahead, was set up in late 2013 to promoted continued expansion, but does not
appear to have attracted the broad-based support of Cambridge Futures and to date lacks local council
representation.
17
To suggest a dominant discourse is not to recognise that there have been challenges to this and to the
benefits and distribution of rewards generated by this trajectory (see Crang and Martin, 1991)
16
example in the idea of the Civic University (Goddard and Vallance, 2013) and
promoted in a series of studies of which the ‘Witty Report’ (Witty, 2013) is the most
recent. Second, the case of Cambridge demonstrates that ‘nimbyism’ or resistance
to the local impacts of development is not an inevitable reaction to proposals for
growth even when imposition in the form of strategic plans and top down targets are
removed. Local communities, can in particular circumstances, buy in to the bigger
picture and the benefits that will follow. Third, shifts of this nature are only likely to
take effect over a relatively long time period – in this case at least two decades of
more. SQW (2011b: 6) observed that “it took many years for the planning policy
framework to change from a stance of strong resistance to growth, to its reluctant
accommodation in a dispersed pattern around the county to positive management of
growth in and around the city.” Dominant discourses can change (and be changed)
but this is a complex and long-term process. Fourth, it was clear from the views of
many respondents to the study that effective leadership was a critical and necessary
part of the process – political and professional leadership in the three main councils,
in the University, through Cambridge Horizons, Cambridge Futures and other
stakeholders. This was reflected, in turn in effective joint working relations which
other localities have looked to as exemplary. Fifth, creating a vision early on in the
process, providing evidence and engaging (possibly shaping) wider public opinion
through consultation played a key role. Lastly, however, support for growth has
been seen by some as increasingly fragile with localism threatening to undermine the
trajectory of the previous three decades or more As one participant observed, the
sub-region has been “dining out on the 2003 Structure Plan”. It would be wrong,
therefor to see the Cambridge city-region as an exemplar of strategic planning in the
absence of a strategic planning framework as such.
References
Allmendinger, P. (2009), Planning Theory, chapter 5. Neo-Liberal Planning, 105-27
Allmendinger. P. (2011), New Labour and Planning. From New Right to New Left,
Routledge.
Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2012a), Post-political Spatial Planning in England:
A Crisis of Consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1): 89103
Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2012b), ‘The Evolution and Trajectories of English
Spatial Governance: Neo-liberal Episodes in Planning’, Planning Practice and
Research, iFirst article, 1-21.
Baker, A. (2010). ‘Controlling the growth of Cambridge (UK): challenges to planning
its built environment’, Annales do Geographie 673, 293-304.
Baker, M. and Wong, C. (2012), ‘The delusion of strategic spatial planning: what’s left
after the Labour government’s English regional experiment?’, Planning Practice and
Research, 28 (1), 83-103.
Barker, K. (2004). Barker Review of Housing Supply. Delivering stability: securing our
future housing needs. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/barker_review_of_housing_supply_recommendations.htm.
Accessed 6th May 2014.
Brenner et al (2010). Brenner, N., Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2010), ‘After
Neoliberalization?’, Globalizations, 7 (3), 327-345.
Brindley, T., Rydin, Y., and Stoker, G. (1996), Remaking Planning: the Politics of Urban
Change, Routledge, chapter 3, 27-50, ‘Regulative planning: the Cambridge area’
Boddy, M. and Hickman, H. (2013), ‘The demise of strategic planning? The impact of
the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategy in a growth region’, Town Planning Review,
84, 743-768.
Boland, P. (2014), ‘The relationship between spatial planning and economic
competitiveness: the ‘path to economic nirvana’ or a ‘dangerous obsession’?,
Environment and Planning A, 46, 770 – 787.
Cambridge University. (2012). North West Cambridge: Special New Supplement,
Michaelmas 2012. Cambridge University.
Cambridge and Peterborough Joint Strategic Planning Unit (C&P JSPU). (2012a),
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Strategic Planning and Transport Member
Group – Committee Papers – 15 October 2012.
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CMSWebsite/Apps/Committees/Meeting.aspx?
meetingID=552 (accessed 5 November 2012).
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Strategic Planning Unit (C&P JSPU). (2012b).
Purpose of Joint Strategic Work. http://www. cambridgeshire. gov.
uk/CMSWebsite/Apps/Committees/AgendaItem. aspx?agendaItemID=5768.
Accessed July 12th 2012.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Strategic Planning Unit (C&P JSPU). (2013).
Objectively assessed need for additional housing. http://www. cambridgeshire. gov.
uk/CMSWebsite/Apps/Committees/AgendaItem. aspx?agendaItemID=6846.
Accessed June 3rd 2013.
Cambridgeshire Authorities. (2010). JOINT STATEMENT ON THE DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY FOR CAMBRIDGESHIRE BY THE CAMBRIDGESHIRE AUTHORITIES.
https://www.scambs.gov.uk/sites/www.scambs.gov.uk/files/documents/JOINT%20S
TATEMENT%20ON%20STRATEGIC%20PLANNING%202010.pdf. Accessed 6th May
2014.
Cambridgeshire County Council. (1971), Cambridge Study Area Review.
Cambridgeshire County Council.
Cambridgeshire County Council. (2011), Cambridge City: Annual demographic and
socio-economic report.
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3B0B3AA7B-E448-4D61-A8530B5A1A467969/0/CambridgeCityDistrictReport2011.pdf. Accessed June 25th 2013.
Carpenter, J. (2014). ‘Inspector urges Worcestershire councils to up housing
numbers’, Planning, 10 April,
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1289663/inspector-urgesworcestershire-councils-housing-numbers#disqus_thread. Accessed 13th May 2014.
Centre for Cities. (2013). Cities Outlook 2013. Centre for Cities.
Centre for Cities. (2014). Cities Outlook 2014. Centre for Cities.
Clifford, B. and Tewdwr-Jones, M (eds). (2013). The collaborating planner?
Practitioners in the neo-liberal age. Policy Press.
CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2012a), A plain English guide to the
Localism Bill, London, Communities and Local Government.
CLG. (2012b), National Planning Policy Framework. Communities and Local
Government.
Cooper, A. (1998). The origins of the Cambridge Green Belt, Bulletin of the
International Planning History Society, 20.2.
Crang, P. and Martin, R. (1991), ‘Mrs Thatcher's vision of the 'new Britain' and the
other sides of the 'Cambridge phenomenon’, Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 9(1) 91 –116.
Davoudi, S. and Madanipour, A. (2013), ‘Localism and neo-liberal governmentality’,
Town Planning Review, 84 (5), 551-561.
Deas, I. (2012), ‘Towards post-political consensus in urban policy. Localism and the
emerging agenda for regeneration under the Cameron government’, Planning
Practice and Research, 28 (1), 65-82.
Echenique, M. (2005), ‘Forecasting the Sustainability of Alternative Plans: The
Cambridge Futures Experience’, in Jenks, M. and Dempsey, N. (eds), ‘Future Forms
and Design For Sustainable Cities’, Architectural Press, ??
Elliott, C. (2014), ‘George Osborne - why £500m City Deal will be a winner for
Cambridge’, Cambridge News, 27 March, http://www.cambridgenews.co.uk/Cambridge/EXCLUSIVE-George-Osborne-why-500m-City-Deal-will-be-awinner-for-Cambridge-20140327060000.htm#ixzz311MEmjvE. Accessed 7th May
2014.
Faludi, A. (2010), ‘Centenary paper: European spatial planning: past, present and
future’, Town Planning Review, 81, 1-22.
Gallent, N. and Robinson, S. (2012), Neighbourhood Planning: Communities,
Networks and Governance. Policy Press University of Bristol.
Gallent, N. Hamiduddin, I. and Madeddu, M. (2013). ‘Localism, down-scaling and the
strategic dilemmas confronting planning in England’, Town Planning Review, 84, 563
– 582.
Geoghegan, J. (2014), ‘Inspector issues soundness warning over East Devon local
plan’, Planning, 7 April,
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1289110/inspector-issues-soundnesswarning-east-devon-local-plan. Accessed 13th May 2014.
Glasson, J., Lawton Smith., H. Remeo, S., Waters, R., and Chadwick, A. (2013),
‘Entrepreneurial regions: Evidence from Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire’, Social
Science Information, 52(4) 653–673.
Goddard, J and Vallance, P. (2013), The University and the City, Abingdon, Routledge
Government Office for the East of England. (2000), RPG6: Regional Planning
Guidance for East Anglia to 2016. TSO.
Government Office for the East of England. (2008), East of England Plan. TSO.
Hamiduddin, I. and Gallent, N. (2012), ‘Limits to Growth: the challenge of housing
delivery in England’s “under-bounded” districts’, Planning Practice and Research, 27,
513-30.
Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P. and Oosterlynck, S. (2013) Spaces of neoliberal
experimentation: soft spaces, post-politics and neoliberal governmentality,
Environment and Planning A, 45: 217-234.
Haughton, G. and Allmendinger, P. (2013), Spatial Planning and the New Localism,
Routledge
Havergal, C. (2012), ‘60% housbuilding slump ‘is fuelling crisis in city’. http://www.
cambridge-news. co. uk/News/60-housebuilding-slump-is-fuelling-crisis-in-city20032012. html. Accessed July 5th 2012.
Healey, P. (2007), Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Routledge, London.
Heseltine, M. (2012). No Stone Unturned: in pursuit of growth.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34
648/12-1213-no-stone-unturned-in-pursuit-of-growth.pdf. (Accessed 7th May 2014).
HM Government. (2011), Unlocking growth in cities. HM Government.
HM Treasury. (2014), Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech on science in Cambridge.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chancellor-of-the-exchequers-speechon-science-in-cambridge. Accessed 28th April 2014.
Holford, W and Wright, HM. (1950), Cambridge Planning Proposals Volume I.
Cambridge University Press.
Home Builders Federation. (2013). East of England Housing Crisis Report. HBF,
London.
Holman, S. and Rydin, Y. (2012), ‘What Can Social Capital Tell Us about Planning
Under Localism’, Local Government Studies, 39 (1), 71-88.
Inch, A. (2009), ‘Planning at the crossroads again: re-evaluating street level
regulation of the contradictions in New Labour’s planning reforms’, Planning Practice
and Research 24 (1), 83-101.
Inch, A. (2012a), ‘Deconstructing Spatial Planning: Re-interpreting the Articulation of
a New Ethos for English Local Planning, European Planning Studies 20 (6), 1039-1057.
Inch, A. (2012b), ‘Creating 'a generation of NIMBYs'? Interpreting the role of the
state in managing the politics of urban development’, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 30 (3), 520 – 535.
Jones, C. (2014), ‘Land use planning policies and market forces: Utopian aspirations
thwarted?, Land Use Policy 38, 573– 579.
Keeble, D. (1989). ‘High-technology industry and regional development in Britain: the
case of the Cambridge phenomenon’. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy 7 (2) 153–172.
Ludwig, C and Ludwig, G. (2014), ‘Empty gestures? A review of the discourses of
‘localism’ from the practitioner’s perspective’, Local Economy, 29 (3), 245–256.
Marshall, T. (2007), ‘After structure planning: the new sub-regional planning in
England’, European Planning Studies, 15, 107-32.
Mazzucato, M. (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector
myths, Anthem Press.
Monk, S. Whitehead, C. Burgess, G. and Tang, C. (2013). International Review Of land
Supply and Planning Systems. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Morrison, N. (2010), `A green belt under pressure: the case of Cambridge, England’,
Planning Practice and Research: Special Issue Green Belts, 25, 157-181
Mott, N. (1969). Report. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Moules, J. and Pickford, J. (2013). Start-up Cambridge and London leave Oxford blue,
in Financial Times, Friday 4th October, p.4.
Naughton, J. (2013). ‘They call it Silicon Fen. So what is the special pull of Cambridge’,
Observor, 1 December, 24-25
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003a). Building sustainable communities: The
Sustainable Communities Plan. London HMSO.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003b). Sustainable communities in the East of
England. London HMSO.
Padley, M. (2013). ‘Delivering Localism: The Critical Role of Trust and Collaboration’,
Social Policy and Society, 12, 343-354.
Planning Inspectorate (2012b), Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy
Examination Inspector’s Preliminary Conclusions on Strategic Matters and Way
Forward – June 2012.
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-andBuilding-Control/Planning- Policy/Core-Strategy/Examination/id
28_preliminary_conclusions_final_21_june_2012 pdf (accessed 18 September 2013).
Platt, S. (2013). Backing for a big idea - Consensus building for strategic planning in
Cambridge. Planning Advisory Service and the Local Government Association.
Pricewaterhousecoopers (PWC) and Institute for Housing and Urban Development
Studies (HIS). (2014), Innovative city strategies for delivering sustainable
competitiveness http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/psrc/global/assets/pwc-innovativecity-strategies-for-sustainable-competitiveness.pdf. Accessed 8th May 2014.
Raco, M. (2012), ‘A growth agenda without growth: English spatial policy, sustainable
communities, and the death of the neo-liberal project?’, Geo Journal, 77, 153-65.
Sayer, A. (1992), Method in Social Science, 2nd edition, Hutchinson, Oxford.
Segal Quince and Partners (1985). The Cambridge Phenomenon. The Growth of High
Technology Industry in a University Town. SQW Limited, Cambridge.
Segal Quince Wicksteed and Partners. (2011a), Cambridge Cluster at 50. The
Cambridge economy: retrospect and prospect. Final report to EEDA and partners.
SQW, Cambridge
Segal Quince Wicksteed and Partners. (2011b), Viewpoint series - Cambridge
Phenomenon Update. SQW, Cambridge.
Tetlow King Planning. (2012), Updated research on the impact of impending
revocation of regional strategies on proposed and adopted local housing targets
across England. .
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/planning%20for%20less%20
full%20figures.pdf (Accessed 13th May 2014).
Valler, D., Phelps, N. and Wood, A. (2012), ‘Planning for Growth? The implications of
localism for “science vale”, Oxfordshire UK’, Town Planning Review, 83, 457-88.
Wallop, H. (2012), ‘The bulldozers are coming for the green belt. Huge chunks of the
green belt around Cambridge are being gobbled up by developers – is this Britain’s
future? Telegraph September 10.
Walsh, C. (2014). ‘Rethinking the Spatiality of Spatial Planning: Methodological
Territorialism and Metageographies’, European Planning Studies, 22 (2), 306-322.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9533460/The-bulldozersare-coming-for-the-green-belt.html. Accessed January 8th 2013.
While, A., Jonas, A., and Gibbs, D. (2004), Unblocking the City? Growth pressures,
collective provision and the search for new spaces of governance in Greater
Cambridge, England, Environment and Planning A, 36, 279-304.
Witty, A. (2013), Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s
Review of Universities and Growth: Final Report and Recommendations, Department
of Business Innovation and Science.
Table 1: Housing completions, all tenures, 2004/05 – 2013/14
Cambridge
City
South
Cambridgeshir
e
Total
2004/05
601
2005/06
731
2006/07
629
2007/8
521
2008/9
588
2009/10
287
2010/11
390
2011/12
331
2012/13
482
2013/14
1,120
571
877
924
1,274
610
611
656
671
587
590
1,172
1,608
1,553
1,795
1,198
898
1,046
1,002
1,069
1,710
Source: Cambridgeshire County Council, Growth and Economy, Research and Monitoring, 2014 and ONS Live tables on house building, Table 253a
Table 2: Planned house-building, Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire since 2003
Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough
Structure Plan, 2003
RSS: East of
England Plan,
2008
Proposed RSS
revisions 2010
(never adopted)
2014 Local Plan: Issues and Options
Consultation
Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Joint
Strategic Planning Unit
(May 2013)
Submitted Local
Plans
Period
Cambridge City
1990-2016
12,500 (735 pa)
2001-2021
19,000 (950
pa)
2011 – 2031
14,000 (700 pa)
2011-31
14,000 (700 pa)
2011-31
14,000 (700 pa)
South
Cambridgeshire
20,000 (1176 pa)
23,500 (1,175
pa)
21,000 (1050 pa)
‘Towards 2031’
Strategic priority options 2 – 5:
Option 2: 12, 700 (urban growth)
Option 3: 14,000 (current
development strategy)
Option 4: 21,000 (enhanced levels
of green belt and urban growth)
Option 5: 25,000 (significantly
enhanced levels of green belt and
urban growth)
Lower : 18, 500 (existing + 4,300)
Medium: 21,500 (existing + 7,300)
High: 23,500 (existing + 9,300)
19,000 (950 pa)
19,000 (950 pa)
Total
1,911 pa
2,125 pa
1,750 pa
1,650 pa
1,650 pa